Shows that there is now no reference to 'Wikileaks' on the page, or even in the page source.

Given that the subject of the article is 'Northern Rock', a reference
to Wikileaks would be about the censored executive briefing
document, since Wikileaks has no other involvement with Northern
Rock.

Hence that part of the story was pulled offline sometime after
initial publication, likely because of the 13th of Nov 2007 UK
censorship injunction which directs, according to London lawyers
Schillings (representing Northern Rock):

Pursuant to an Order of the Royal Courts of Justice dated 13th

November 2007 ("the Order") no person shall publish or communicate or disclose to any other person (other than by way of disclosure to legal advisers instructed in relation to the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining legal advice), inter alia, the information contained within the "Northern Rock Executive Summary"

The Order also provides that any person who knows of the Order and disobeys it or does anything which helps or permits any person to whom the Order applies to breach the terms of the Order may be held to be in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined or have their assets seized.

This part of the order expired on the 20th of November, but presumably Time Magazine was not aware of this fact, since Schillings have been careful to refuse to give out the full order.

Time demonstrates how a country with poor press freedoms (UK) is able to undermine a country with strong press freedoms (US). In this case to the degree that Time not only refuses to provide copies of an important leaked report, but even goes so far as to censor its reporters when they simply mention the name of a publication that does!

The full report remains available at Wikileaks.

Time magazine was asked for comment, but did not respond by the time of this release.